[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But... tell me please, ANYONE, who takes part in this inspiring exchange:
How many COBOL programs have you written in your life?
How many programs in Cobol have you actually SEEN?
Shudder. In '86, I had to modify a COBOL code generator, *written in
COBOL*. The
| It's interesting that the article completely fails to mention hbc
| which I know they used during the GHC bootstrap. Oh well. :)
|
| On Nov 11, 2007 2:41 PM, Richard Kelsall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Andrew Coppin wrote:
| ...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be a true COBOL replacement, I think that one very important feature
is that it is link-compatible with existing COBOL code. You're never
going to be able to replace a 6MLOC COBOL monster in any manner other
than piecemeal.
AFAIK people are
No worries.
I read the History of Haskell paper twice, but not the final version, I guess.
As far as I remember you started the bootstrapping with the ghc built
on the LML compiler. But as hbc became available it was soon more
reliable and produced better code, so you switched to that until the
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28compilers%29 .
But I can't say what was the particular method used by GHC.
Cya,
--
Felipe.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Somebody just asked me
...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC in
the first place?
... and what happens, if they add a new feature, use it in the compiler
itself, and then it turns out, that the implementation of the new
G'day all.
Quoting Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But I can't say what was the particular method used by GHC.
I don't either, but here's a suggested plan of attack:
1. Write a parser for a suitable subset of Haskell, in a closely
related language (e.g. Miranda).
2. Write a front-end that
Hello Andrew,
Sunday, November 11, 2007, 12:12:50 PM, you wrote:
...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC in
the first place?
by any other haskell compiler/interpreter
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC in
the first place?
GHC was not the first Haskell compiler, hbc was the main compiler at
some point, so I suspect they used hbc. There was also lazy ML which I
suspect was used to bootstrap hbc - but I'm not sure of the
GHC can be compiled with GHC 5.0 (or something around there). If they
add a new feature, they don't use it in GHC for years and years.
*Can* be compiled with GHC 5.0, or *is* compiled?
http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.8.1/html/users_guide/release-6-8-1.html says
that the pointer tagging in 6.8.1
Hi
GHC can be compiled with GHC 5.0 (or something around there). If they
add a new feature, they don't use it in GHC for years and years.
*Can* be compiled with GHC 5.0, or *is* compiled?
Can. If a feature goes horribly wrong, or a build is entirely broken
in some subtle but fundamental
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 07:43 -0500, Brent Yorgey wrote:
GHC can be compiled with GHC 5.0 (or something around there).
If they add a new feature, they don't use it in GHC for years
and years.
*Can* be compiled with GHC 5.0, or *is* compiled?
Can.
The version
Andrew Coppin wrote:
...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC in
the first place?
The paper A History of Haskell: Being Lazy With Class by Paul Hudak,
John Hughes, Simon Peyton Jones and Philip Wadler is a good read.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:07:29AM +, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC in
the first place?
GHC was not the first Haskell compiler, hbc was the main compiler at
some point, so I suspect they used hbc. There was also lazy ML
This isn't a question specific to ghc. In general, the process of
bootstrapping compilers and porting them to new platforms can be
described by T-diagrams. When I did a web search on T-diagrams the
first hit I found,
Dan Piponi wrote:
This isn't a question specific to ghc.
Most certainly not. ;-) (Well, except that I asked where did GHC come
from, which is pretty GHC-specific.)
However, it seems the general point of confusion is that writing (say) a
minimally-working C compiler intuitively seems quite
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
bear no resemblence to any machine-level constructs, and it seems
unthinkable that you could possibly write such a compiler in anything
but Haskell itself.
Hugs is written in C.
Really? :-.
Well anyway, I didn't say it can't be done - I said it *looks*
Hi
bear no resemblence to any machine-level constructs, and it seems
unthinkable that you could possibly write such a compiler in anything
but Haskell itself.
Hugs is written in C.
Really? :-.
Really :-)
(Seriously, how big is Hugs? It must be quite large...)
56111 lines, with
It's interesting that the article completely fails to mention hbc
which I know they used during the GHC bootstrap. Oh well. :)
On Nov 11, 2007 2:41 PM, Richard Kelsall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
...if GHC is written in Haskell, how the heck did they compile GHC in
the
On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:16 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
However, it seems the general point of confusion is that writing
(say) a minimally-working C compiler intuitively seems quite easy
(after all, C is an extremely low-level language), whereas the
constructs in Haskell bear no resemblence to
Expressiveness certainly makes it easier, but nothing (other than
sanity...) stops you from writing a Haskell compiler in, say, COBOL.
*I* would stop you. Friends don't let friends write in COBOL.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On Nov 11, 2007 7:00 PM, Brent Yorgey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expressiveness certainly makes it easier, but nothing (other than
sanity...) stops you from writing a Haskell compiler in, say, COBOL.
*I* would stop you. Friends don't let friends write in COBOL.
+1 QOTW =)
--
Felipe.
Brent Yorgey wrote:
Expressiveness certainly makes it easier, but nothing (other than
sanity...) stops you from writing a Haskell compiler in, say, COBOL.
*I* would stop you. Friends don't let friends write in COBOL.
That's the funniest thing I've read today. You literally just
Andrew Coppin writes:
Brent Yorgey wrote:
Expressiveness certainly makes it easier, but nothing (other than
sanity...) stops you from writing a Haskell compiler in, say, COBOL.
*I* would stop you. Friends don't let friends write in COBOL.
That's the funniest thing I've read
On Nov 11, 2007, at 17:26 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Coppin writes:
Brent Yorgey wrote:
Expressiveness certainly makes it easier, but nothing (other
than
sanity...) stops you from writing a Haskell compiler in, say,
COBOL. *I* would stop you. Friends don't let friends
I would be the last who wanted to spoil such a good joke.
But... tell me please, ANYONE, who takes part in this inspiring exchange:
How many COBOL programs have you written in your life?
How many programs in Cobol have you actually SEEN?
My current project at work has a bunch of legacy
G'day all.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But... tell me please, ANYONE, who takes part in this inspiring
exchange: How many COBOL programs have you written in your life?
As you well know, only one COBOL program has ever been written. The
rest are just modifications of it.
Actually, a more
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But... tell me please, ANYONE, who takes part in this inspiring
exchange: How many COBOL programs have you written in your life?
As you well know, only one COBOL program has ever been written. The
rest
On 12/11/2007, at 4:32 AM, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
bear no resemblence to any machine-level constructs, and it seems
unthinkable that you could possibly write such a compiler in
anything
but Haskell itself.
Hugs is written in C.
Really? :-.
Really :-)
(Seriously, how big is
On 12/11/2007, at 9:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But... tell me please, ANYONE, who takes part in this inspiring
exchange:
How many COBOL programs have you written in your life?
How many programs in Cobol have you actually SEEN?
I saw a lot of COBOL when I worked for a stock broking
G'day all.
I asked:
Actually, a more interesting problem is what you'd replace COBOL with,
and how you'd go about it. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a modern
language that you could write or rewrite new parts of your COBOL
application in, and it all worked seamlessly with what you already
Henning Thielemann:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... tell me please: How many COBOL programs have you written in
your life?
As you well know, only one COBOL program has ever been written. The
rest are just modifications of it.
Actually, a more interesting
Bernie Pope wrote:
On 12/11/2007, at 4:32 AM, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
bear no resemblence to any machine-level constructs, and it seems
unthinkable that you could possibly write such a compiler in anything
but Haskell itself.
Hugs is written in C.
Really? :-.
Really :-)
I have a copy of COBOL for Dummies which I bought as a joke and have never
dared read.
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Coppin writes:
Brent Yorgey wrote:
Expressiveness certainly makes it easier, but nothing (other than
sanity...) stops you from writing a Haskell compiler in,
On 12/11/2007, at 4:08 PM, Michael Vanier wrote:
Bernie Pope wrote:
If I remember correctly, the early versions of the Clean compiler
were written in C. Then at some stage they re-wrote it in Clean.
You could say they cleaned it up.
It was a dirty job, but now it is self cleaning.
35 matches
Mail list logo
